Make an account at http://www.yourmorals.org... then take the "Moral Foundations" test. This is also sometimes called the five pillars of morality and is often said to be the five main factors one bases their political views on.

Harm/Care

Fairness(equality)

In-group loyalty

Respect for authority

Purity

Conservatives tend to value all 5 values equally, whereas liberals tend to value care and fairness much more than the other three values. Most people are in-between, valuing care and fairness only slightly more than the rest. Not entirely sure about Libertarians, should be able to get an idea if enough people respond to this.

At 11/24/2010 9:48:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:Make an account at http://www.yourmorals.org... then take the "Moral Foundations" test. This is also sometimes called the five pillars of morality and is often said to be the five main factors one bases their political views on.

Harm/Care

Fairness(equality)

In-group loyalty

Respect for authority

Purity

Conservatives tend to value all 5 values equally, whereas liberals tend to value care and fairness much more than the other three values. Most people are in-between, valuing care and fairness only slightly more than the rest. Not entirely sure about Libertarians, should be able to get an idea if enough people respond to this.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 11/24/2010 9:48:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:Make an account at http://www.yourmorals.org... then take the "Moral Foundations" test. This is also sometimes called the five pillars of morality and is often said to be the five main factors one bases their political views on.

Harm/Care

Fairness(equality)

In-group loyalty

Respect for authority

Purity

Conservatives tend to value all 5 values equally, whereas liberals tend to value care and fairness much more than the other three values. Most people are in-between, valuing care and fairness only slightly more than the rest. Not entirely sure about Libertarians, should be able to get an idea if enough people respond to this.

At 11/24/2010 9:48:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:Make an account at http://www.yourmorals.org... then take the "Moral Foundations" test. This is also sometimes called the five pillars of morality and is often said to be the five main factors one bases their political views on.

Harm/Care

Fairness(equality)

In-group loyalty

Respect for authority

Purity

Conservatives tend to value all 5 values equally, whereas liberals tend to value care and fairness much more than the other three values. Most people are in-between, valuing care and fairness only slightly more than the rest. Not entirely sure about Libertarians, should be able to get an idea if enough people respond to this.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 11/24/2010 9:48:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:Make an account at http://www.yourmorals.org... then take the "Moral Foundations" test. This is also sometimes called the five pillars of morality and is often said to be the five main factors one bases their political views on.

Harm/Care

Fairness(equality)

In-group loyalty

Respect for authority

Purity

Conservatives tend to value all 5 values equally, whereas liberals tend to value care and fairness much more than the other three values. Most people are in-between, valuing care and fairness only slightly more than the rest. Not entirely sure about Libertarians, should be able to get an idea if enough people respond to this.

This. Freedo never takes the time to stop and really understand any of his philosophies. That's why he constantly changes them. He is, in the words of the Joker, like a dog chasing a car. He's not really sure why he chases it, or what he'd do if he actually caught it. He just does things.

At 11/24/2010 10:13:25 PM, bluesteel wrote:I don't understand how anarcho-communism makes sense. How can you enforce the confiscation and redistribution of property without the State?

There is no such thing as property in Anarcho-Communism. Property is an invention of the state.

Uh huh, and what about when I try to keep all my stuff.

Who steals it from me if there's anarchy? Even if it were an invention of the State, people wouldn't give it up easily.

But Locke says property is a natural right (meaning it would exist under anarchy). It's clear from studying tribal communities that they had property rights.

There is a difference between property, which one owns, and possessions, which one uses. Possessions are natural, it is simply whatever you use. Property is an invention. Under Anarcho-Communism, what one should be open to possessing is a matter of negotiation and consensus. It indeed takes place in a world where people are able to get along and reason with each other without coercion, an incredible feet.

And do we have self-ownership under communism?

Self-ownership is a redundant term and has unintended consequences. You possess yourself, this can't be changed. But to say you own yourself implies that you may sell yourself, which is indeed what Capitalism is founded upon. Capitalism is a system which turns human beings into commodities to be bought and sold on the market-place.

So it's a utopian fiction. If someone tries to take my stuff (house, cars, yachts) I'm going to defend it using my other stuff (guns, slaves, 15 Dobermans).

And do we have self-ownership under communism?

Self-ownership is a redundant term and has unintended consequences. You possess yourself, this can't be changed. But to say you own yourself implies that you may sell yourself, which is indeed what Capitalism is founded upon. Capitalism is a system which turns human beings into commodities to be bought and sold on the market-place.

What's wrong with selling yourself - you make the decision.

If there's no self-ownership, everyone is society jointly owns everyone else, then how would rape be un-allowed?

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)

So it's a utopian fiction. If someone tries to take my stuff (house, cars, yachts) I'm going to defend it using my other stuff (guns, slaves, 15 Dobermans).

No one in a proper AnCom society would try to take your stuff.

And do we have self-ownership under communism?

Self-ownership is a redundant term and has unintended consequences. You possess yourself, this can't be changed. But to say you own yourself implies that you may sell yourself, which is indeed what Capitalism is founded upon. Capitalism is a system which turns human beings into commodities to be bought and sold on the market-place.

What's wrong with selling yourself - you make the decision.

If there's no self-ownership, everyone is society jointly owns everyone else, then how would rape be un-allowed?